1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-754 

 Magistrate Judge King 

JEFFREY MARABLE, MD, 

 Defendant. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 This is an action to recover on a government insured Health 

Education Assistance Loan (“HEAL”) allegedly executed by Defendant 

Jeffrey Marable, M.D. See Complaint, Doc. No. 2, (attaching as 

Exhibits A and B a copy of the HEAL Note and a Certificate of 

Indebtedness). On March 21, 2014, this Court granted Plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment in the amount of $114,672.91. Opinion and 

Order, Doc. No. 21; Clerk’s Judgment, Doc. No. 22.1

 This matter is now 

before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Marable’s Objections to 

Magistrate’s [sic] Opinion and Order Dated March 21, 2014 

(“Defendant’s Motion”), Doc. No. 23, which the Court has received as a 

motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

See Order, Doc. No. 24. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s 

Motion is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Between 1986 and 1990, Defendant took out various loans, 

including HEAL loans from private lender Sallie Mae, to finance his 

 

1 The parties consented to disposition of the case by the undersigned pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

medical schooling. Defendant consolidated six loans on February 21, 

1995, pursuant to the Federal HEAL Consolidation Program by executing 

a Sallie Mae HEAL Relief Promissory Note in the principal amount of 

$94,566.33 (“the HEAL Note”). Bankruptcy Documents, p. 3, attached to 

Plaintiff United States of America’s Reply to Its Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Plaintiff’s MSJ Reply”), Doc. No. 14-2. Defendant made 

payments on the HEAL Note until he filed a petition under Chapter 13 

of the Bankruptcy Code on January 5, 2005. Affidavit of Jeffrey 

Marable, M.D. (“Marable Affidavit”), ¶ 5, attached to Defendant’s 

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

(“Defendant’s MSJ Memo in Opp.”), Doc. No. 13-1. Sallie Mae filed a 

proof of claim in that action in the amount of $75,774.34 in 

connection with a student loan or loans. Bankruptcy Documents, p.1, 

attached to Plaintiff’s MSJ Reply, Doc. No. 14-2. The Educational 

Credit Management Corporation (“ECMC”), a servicer for Sallie Mae 

loans, filed a separate proof of claim in the bankruptcy action in 

connection with a different student loan in the amount of $45,093.57. 

Id. at 3 et seq. The Schedule F in Defendant’s bankruptcy proceedings 

reflects claims by or on behalf of Sallie Mae in the total amount of 

“$121,243.55” in connection with student loans. Id. at 7.

 Sallie Mae filed a claim with the Department of Health and Human 

Services (“HHS”) in the amount of $75,891.00 after Defendant filed for 

bankruptcy protection. Certificate of Indebtedness, pp. 1-2, attached 

as Exhibit B to Complaint. HHS paid that claim on February 10, 2005, 

and the HEAL Note was assigned to HHS. Id. HHS advised Defendant of 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

the assignment and attempted, without success, to work out a repayment 

schedule. Id. at 2-3. 

 As noted supra, this Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiff 

in the total amount of $114,672.91. 

In Defendant’s Motion, Defendant argues that there remains a 

genuine dispute of material fact as to (1) whether Defendant defaulted 

on the HEAL Note, and (2) the amount of damages, even assuming that he 

did. Defendant’s Motion, pp. 3-4. Thus, according to Defendant, the 

judgment should be vacated and the action should proceed to a trial on 

the merits. Id. at 5. 

 Plaintiff opposes Defendant’s Motion, taking the position that 

Defendant has failed to allege a clear error of law. Plaintiff United 

States of America’s Response in Opposition to Motion to Alter or Amend 

Judgment (“Plaintiff’s Response”), p. 1, Doc. No. 25. 

II. STANDARD 

A court may alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) only if there is “(1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered 

evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need 

to prevent manifest injustice.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 

605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005)(citing GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l 

Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)). A district court has 

“considerable discretion” in deciding whether to grant a Rule 59(e) 

motion. Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 616 

F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010). 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

III. ANALYSIS 

As discussed supra, Plaintiff seeks to recover on a HEAL 

promissory note. To establish a prima facie case to recover on a 

promissory note, the government must show that “(1) the defendant 

signed it, (2) the government is the present owner or holder and (3) 

the note is in default.” United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 

290 (6th Cir. 2009)(citing United States v. MacDonald, No. 93-1924, 

1994 WL 194248, at *2 (6th Cir. May 16, 1994)). If the government 

establishes a prima facie case, then the defendant debtor “has the 

burden of proving the nonexistence, extinguishment or variance in 

payment of the obligation.” Id. (citing United States v. Davis, No. 

00-1985, 28 F. App’x 502, 503 (6th Cir. Jan. 31, 2002)). 

In granting summary judgment in this case, the Court determined 

that Plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that Defendant 

had “failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the 

‘nonexistence, extinguishment or variance in payment of the 

obligation.’” Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 21, p. 11 (citing PetroffKline, 557 F.3d at 290). The Plaintiff established a prima facie case 

by providing a copy of the signed HEAL Note and the Certificate of 

Indebtedness, which establish that the Defendant signed the HEAL Note, 

that the Government is the present owner of the HEAL Note, and that 

the HEAL Note is in default. Id. at 5; see Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d at 

290.

In seeking to alter or amend the judgment entered in this action, 

Defendant offers no newly discovered evidence or change in controlling 

law, nor does he point to a need to prevent manifest injustice. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

Instead, Defendant argues that, in granting summary judgment, the 

Court committed an error of law. Defendant’s Motion.

Defendant argues, first, that the Court erred in concluding that 

Defendant is in default under the HEAL Note. In this regard, Defendant 

insists that all of his student loans were consolidated into the HEAL 

Note, which was then placed in forebearance by Sallie Mae in 2011. 

Defendant’s Motion, p. 2; Marable Affidavit, ¶¶ 5, 11. Plaintiff 

responds that the loan in forbearance to which Defendant refers is an 

entirely different loan that was not included in the HEAL Note. 

Plaintiff’s Response, p. 2. Noting that Sallie Mae was paid $75,891.00 

for its claim in connection with the HEAL Note on February 10, 2005, 

and then assigned the HEAL Note to the Plaintiff, Plaintiff also 

argues that Sallie Mae could not have granted forbearance on 

Defendant’s HEAL Note in 2011 because Sallie Mae no longer owned or 

serviced that loan as of February 10, 2005. Id. 

 Plaintiff’s arguments are well taken and Defendant’s assertion 

in his affidavit that all of his student loans were consolidated in 

the HEAL Note does not create a genuine issue of material fact. As 

this Court concluded in its grant of summary judgment, a reasonable 

jury could not conclude that the HEAL Note includes the note currently 

in forbearance in light of “discrepancies in the outstanding principal 

balances, origination dates, and original loan amounts.” Opinion and 

Order, p. 10. 

The note in forbearance originated on September 8, 1994. Letter 

to Defendant from Sallie Mae, p. 3, attached to Plaintiff’s MSJ Reply, 

Doc. No. 14-1. The HEAL Note at issue in this case does not include a 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6

loan that originated in 1994. Compare id. with Exhibit A, p. 3, 

attached to Complaint. Moreover, Defendant is simply wrong when he 

asserts that “Sallie Mae filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy in 

the amount of $75,774.34 . . .[and no] other claims were filed in the 

bankruptcy on behalf of student loan creditors.” Defendant’s Motion, 

p. 2. Although Sallie Mae filed a proof of claim in the amount of 

$75,774.34 in the bankruptcy proceeding, Bankruptcy Documents, p. 1, 

Doc. No. 14-2, the record establishes that ECMC, a Sallie Mae 

servicer, also filed a proof of claim relating to a student loan and 

the Schedule F filed in the bankruptcy action reflects claims by or on 

behalf of Sallie Mae in the total amount of “$121,243.55.” Id. pp. 3, 

7. The record therefore establishes that the HEAL Note does not 

include every student loan on which Defendant is obligated. 

Furthermore, and as Plaintiff notes, the HEAL Note was assigned 

to Plaintiff following its payment of Sallie Mae’s claim in connection 

with that loan in 2005. Therefore, Sallie Mae no longer owned the HEAL 

Note and could not have effectively placed it in forbearance in 2011. 

After again reviewing the record and the arguments of the 

parties, this Court again concludes that a reasonable jury could not 

find that the Sallie Mae loan in forbearance is the HEAL Note at issue 

in this action. The loan in forbearance was not included in the HEAL 

Note, the two loans have different origination dates, and Sallie Mae 

has not owned or serviced the HEAL Note since February 10, 2005. As it 

relates to this argument, Defendant’s Motion is without merit. 

Defendant also argues in Defendant’s Motion that there is a 

genuine dispute of material fact as to the amount due on the HEAL 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7

Note, even assuming Defendant’s default. Defendant’s Motion, p. 4. 

Specifically, Defendant points to Sallie Mae’s proof of claim in 

Defendant’s bankruptcy proceeding in the amount of $75,774.34 and to 

the principal balance of $108,860.04 in the Certificate of 

Indebtedness filed in this action. Id. Defendant sees an issue for 

trial in the fact that “at the time of Dr. Marable’s bankruptcy 

Plaintiff was claiming a balance of $75,774.34; yet, years later 

Plaintiff claims that the principal balance increased.” Id. (emphasis 

in the original). 

In response, Plaintiff takes the position that the increase in 

the principal amount due is explained by the fact that interest on the 

HEAL Note has been compounded annually. Plaintiff’s Response, p. 3. 

Plaintiff’s arguments are again well taken. Defendant does not 

claim credit for any payments by him on the HEAL Note since his 

bankruptcy proceedings, nor does he allege error in the calculations 

reflected in the Certificate of Indebtedness. The principal balance on 

the HEAL Note therefore properly increased by the compounded interest 

each year. As it relates to this argument, Defendant’s Motion is 

likewise without merit. 

In short, Defendant has failed to establish a clear error of law 

in the grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Defendant has 

failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to the 

“‘nonexistence, extinguishment or variance in payment of the 

obligation.’” Opinion and Order, p. 11 (citing Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 

at 290). 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
8

Defendant Jeffrey Marable’s Objections to Magistrate’s [sic]

Opinion and Order Dated March 21, 2014, Doc. No. 23, is therefore 

DENIED. 

 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

July 15, 2014 

Case: 2:12-cv-00754-NMK Doc #: 26 Filed: 07/15/14 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>